I can also speak to some of the negativity as you've asked for folks to chime in. The foreign banner waving you're seeing is a response to the perceived and actual loss of freedoms and autonomy guaranteed under Once Country, Two Systems for a minimum of the next 20 years. Beijing is failing to honor the commitments it made to the Hong Kong people, to the UK and to the international community in 1997. The Hong Kong people are as a result asking for assistance from their former colonial overlords and contractually-bound current protectors (the UK) and the "bastion of freedom" (the US).

I sincerely doubt that had Beijing given Hong Kong the autonomy it committed to, you'd be seeing this kind of action on their part.

It didn't need to be this way, but the CPC cannot tolerate anything that might be perceived as an attack on "national unity" (and I use quotes only because "national" as defined by the CPC extends into the sovereign land of a number of countries including (at least) Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and India).

They're asking for war, for the UK or US to engage China. That is too much to ask. Neither the UK or US has the will or the ability to wage such a war. China wants Hong Kong to be part of it and it will get it just like Russia got Crimea. There are no repercussions to China passing laws and doing as they see fit. They could full out abolish the entire agreement and bring HK under Chinese rule like the mainland if they wanted to. The only way to stop such aggression is war. And that is especially not going to happen as both the UK and US are struggling to get a handle on corona. Agreements and contracts don't mean shit if they can't be enforced and there are no consequences to breaking them. Whatever agreements China and the UK had before don't mean shit anymore because of exactly that.

> They're asking for war

This is a gross misinterpretation. What the protestors actually wanted was:

- For the UK to grant BN(O) holders citizenship to show that they are no longer bound by the Sino-UK Joint Declaration.

- For the US to revoke Hong Kong's special status (the Hong Kong Policy Act).

> For the UK to grant BN(O) holders citizenship to show that they are no longer bound by the Sino-UK Joint Declaration.

BN(O)s are already British Nationals (hence the 'BN'), what they're missing is Right of Abode in the UK.

Correct, hence there is currently no pathway to citizenship / "settled status" for BN(O) holders.

This is why the recently proposed BN(O) changes are quite significant.

Thank you for responding also. I don't realize that I asked anyone to chime in. I just said what I thought and don't understand why I'm down voted and flagged immediately. TBH what I expected is some discussion (and maybe some down votes, but that's fair if I'm saying something different then others' thought).

If this comment is not flagged, I am interested that specifically what autonomy is taken from Hong Kong so that this "un-nationalism" happened?

The CPC has long meddled in Hong Kong, not least when they disappeared a Chinese billionaire from the penthouse of the Four Seasons [1] who has been 'receiving medical care on the mainland' for 3 years now and 'is very sorry for the trouble he caused'. This is a clear violation of Basic Law and the handover agreement which enshrines a degree of autonomy in Hong Kong and the rule of law.

Then there's the case of the missing booksellers [2]. Another clear violation of Basic Law and the handover agreement which enshrines freedom of speech and of the press in Hong Kong (again, a violation of the rule of law).

Then there's the fact that the high-speed rail station in Kowloon which connects to the mainland is guarded by China Police, who are not allowed to operate in Hong Kong under, you guessed it, Basic Law. [3]

Not to mention the pro-democracy elected officials not being allowed to assume office. [4]

The list goes on, and on, and on. The fact is the PRC agreed to treat Hong Kong a certain way for a certain period of time, and it has failed to live up to its obligations. It has for years now been boiling the frog, so to say, whittling away at the freedoms guaranteed to the Hong Kong people for decades before, and decades to come. With this, they've lurched over the line.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/chinese-billio...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/magazine/the-case-of-hong...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/04/high-speed-tr...

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/hong-kong-pro-...

Also keep in mind that the first strike was probably the annulment of the 1995 LegCo on handover, because it was too open to public influence so the Chinese dissolved it and created a new one in 1998.

Many of the protesters want democracy, they will never get it under the CCP government. So in that sense they reject China, which is understandable (since the CCP did a very good job at making party, country and government seem like one entity).

The reaction of brutally suppressing protests and rejecting any form of discussion, as well as creating these laws that will effectively allow them to shut up their opponents under the pretense of "rule of law" is anti-democratic.

The countries you mention are democratic countries and would (in today's world) address the demands of the protestors (not saying accepting all of them and totally giving in), start a dialogue and find a compromise. The protests would have calmed down a long time ago if there had been any kind of de-escalation from the CCP and HK governments.

Now where do 5 demands state independence?

Flags of other countries (mostly dominant countries like US and UK) were raised due to US and UK had huge stake in HK from the international treaty of the 1984 joint declaration. Since China has broken the promise of 1 country 2 system, UK has the absolute right to hold China accountable for its action because it was an international treaty signed by China and UK. US also gives HK special economic treatment, so US has the power to withdraw the treatment if HK is no longer autonomous.

It doesn't make sense to compare HK and US/UK. Over 2 million marched in HK and the government barely listened to its people. Also, HK has no universal suffrage so obviously the government don't have to worry about people's vote. (Except the "committee" that votes the chief exec)

Why wouldn't the UK or US tolerate that? And what's wrong with identifying as a Hongkonger?

The UK supports the right of self-determination -- often to its own advantage, as in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, but also to Scotland just a few years ago.

Thank you for responding. I'm getting tons of down votes, and you are the first to say something.

You are being downvoted just because the "zh" in your username. What you say it is actually true and I suppose it is the feeling of a majority of HongKongners, if those wishes are legal or feasible it is another discussion.

"I don't have a point so I'm going to pull the race card".

Most Hkers are against CCP not China, who does a great job in blending the nation-party-race elements together in disguise. Hkers don't feel superior, it's just that your self-consciousness are assuming others are looking down on you.. lol

The poster was being downvoted because it was pushing what-about-ism deflection to U.S., and because despite what it may seem, the right to protest, fly other flags, etc, remain strong in the U.S., not just one year, but since 1776, although I'm sure there are counter examples of where it failed,it never collapsed. The passing of this law in Hong Kong is not a single failure but evidence of a total collapse the free speech and Democratic leanings from a mainland centralized power.